Ahlfeldt v. City of Mexico
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from Audrain Circuit Court. — Hon. James D. Barnett, Judge. (1) When tbe question is whether or not there was want of due care in any particular case, evidence of usage is admissible to show what constitutes due care as applied to that particular case. “Ordinary care” is not measured by a fixed rule, but by the usages of different places and trades. Cummings y.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Audrain Circuit Court. — Hon. James D. Barnett, Judge. (1) When tbe question is whether or not there was want of due care in any particular case, evidence of usage is admissible to show what constitutes due care as applied to that particular case. “Ordinary care” is not measured by a fixed rule, but by the usages of different places and trades. Cummings y. Gillespie Co., 62 N. J. L. 370, 41 Att. 693; 3 Elliott Ev., 2, 2505, 2521; Greenwell v. Crow, 73 Mo. 638; Hunt v. Hurd (C. C. A.), 98 Fed. 683; Olsen y. Lumber Co. (C. C. A.), 119 Fed. 77; Johnson v. Lightsey, 34 Ala. 163, 73…
1Opinion of the CourtNortoni, J.
This is an action for personal injuries said to have accrued to plaintiff by virtue of the defendant city’s negligence in failing to properly notify the plaintiff and other members of the public that a certain public street, then being paved, was withdrawn from public occupation. The plaintiff is a travelling agent, engaged in selling threshing machines, sawmills, etc. He had been prosecuting his calling in the country several miles from the city of Mexico and was returning therefrom to the hotel in that city at the time of his injury. The surface of one of the city’s principal streets,…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Jackson v. HardinSupreme Court of Missouri · 1884
- Aull Savings Bank v. Aull's AdministratorSupreme Court of Missouri · 1883
- Chicago & Alton Railroad v. HarringtonIllinois Supreme Court · 1901
- Stephens v. City of MaconSupreme Court of Missouri · 1884
- State ex rel. Farwell v. LelandSupreme Court of Missouri · 1884
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Wahl v. CunninghamSupreme Court of Missouri · 1928
- City of Rome v. StoneCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1933
- Emerson-Brantingham Implement Co. v. SimpsonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1920